The Associated Press is reporting today that Auditor General Jack Wagner has decided to drop his court battle with the City of Erie over a pension issue.
Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner is dropping his long-standing challenge to a deferred retirement program for Erie's police and firefighters.
The Commonwealth Court rejected Wagner's challenge and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court earlier this month refused to hear Wagner's appeal.
That's why Wagner told city officials on Tuesday that he's ending his court fight, even though he still disagrees with the plan.
Hazleton has a court case ongoing with the Auditor General. With the passing of HB 1828 the issue will probably be resolved. But it just goes to prove that those detractors of Mayor Barletta who were waving the Auditor General's findings as proof of improper activities failed to realize that his findings had to stand up to a court test in order to be found correct. Todd Eachus was using words like "illegal" yet he failed to wait for a court case to back up his personal attack.
Showing posts with label Jack Wagner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Wagner. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Pension Reform Doesn't Reform Anything
The issue of pension funding in Hazleton and cities around the state was addressed in legislation recently passed. However, there is good news and bad news.
First, let's straighten out a political slant to an article that appeared in Saturday's Hazleton Standard Speaker. Here are some quotes that need clarification.
The law signed Friday by Gov. Ed Rendell says that cities "may no longer" use pension tax revenues for any purpose other than to defray pension costs.
By using that language, the law recognizes retroactively that Hazleton had diverted pension tax revenues to other purposes for a number of years, but that practice will no longer be legal in the future, said House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-116, Hazleton, on Friday
With the new law taking effect immediately, Wagner can legally release the city from having to make the repayment, said Eachus.
Eachus said he plans to contact Wagner about the matter now that the law is on the books.
Attorneys in the auditor general's office were briefed on the pension bill's provisions as it moved through the House and Senate in recent weeks.
"My hope is Mr. Wagner will consider the relief to taxpayers immediately," added Eachus.
The law makes new use of "asset smoothing" which involves spreading out pension fund gains and losses over a time. This is designed to avoid wide fluctuation in annual employer contribution requirements stemming from volatile investment markets.
This will save Hazleton more than $600,000 annually on its pension obligation.
Those portions are some of the most disingenous statements on record. Mr. Eachus had nothing to do with the language highlighted that helped Hazleton. That language was added on the Senate side, not the House. He sat silent during a House Fianance Committee hearing held August 18,2008 when the merits of Senate Bill 961 were discussed.
Now lets move onto the real reason for this post and part of it will address the supposed "savings" for the City of Hazleton.
Over at the Commonwealth Foundation Nathan Benefield provides a great analysis of HB 1828 that was passed and is the subject of the article discussed above. Essentially this bill allows municiplaties with under funded pensions to delay payments which will mean that future taxpayers will have to foot the bill. It will lead to increased taxes.
The savings Eachus talks about with Hazleton has to do with a provision that payments are deferred for 5 years. How is that a "savings"?
What he doesn't say is that there is an 8.25% interest penalty on that deferrment. If cities like Hazleton cannot afford their pensions now how is deferring going to help them in the future? It further points to higher taxes. But it doesn't stop there.
Of course, municipalities present only part of Pennsylvania's pension woes. In 2012, state and school property taxpayers will experience significant increases in pension contributions -- from less than 5 percent of salary to upward of 30 percent -- because of similar politically motivated manipulations for public school teachers and state workers in 2001 and 2003.
This bill is no longer a missed opportunity for pension reform, but only serves to exacerbate the crisis facing Pennsylvania cities. Not only is it a vote to raise taxes now, but the deferment of payments pushes costs onto future taxpayers, and will likely mean more tax increases in the future.
First, let's straighten out a political slant to an article that appeared in Saturday's Hazleton Standard Speaker. Here are some quotes that need clarification.
The law signed Friday by Gov. Ed Rendell says that cities "may no longer" use pension tax revenues for any purpose other than to defray pension costs.
By using that language, the law recognizes retroactively that Hazleton had diverted pension tax revenues to other purposes for a number of years, but that practice will no longer be legal in the future, said House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-116, Hazleton, on Friday
With the new law taking effect immediately, Wagner can legally release the city from having to make the repayment, said Eachus.
Eachus said he plans to contact Wagner about the matter now that the law is on the books.
Attorneys in the auditor general's office were briefed on the pension bill's provisions as it moved through the House and Senate in recent weeks.
"My hope is Mr. Wagner will consider the relief to taxpayers immediately," added Eachus.
The law makes new use of "asset smoothing" which involves spreading out pension fund gains and losses over a time. This is designed to avoid wide fluctuation in annual employer contribution requirements stemming from volatile investment markets.
This will save Hazleton more than $600,000 annually on its pension obligation.
Those portions are some of the most disingenous statements on record. Mr. Eachus had nothing to do with the language highlighted that helped Hazleton. That language was added on the Senate side, not the House. He sat silent during a House Fianance Committee hearing held August 18,2008 when the merits of Senate Bill 961 were discussed.
Now lets move onto the real reason for this post and part of it will address the supposed "savings" for the City of Hazleton.
Over at the Commonwealth Foundation Nathan Benefield provides a great analysis of HB 1828 that was passed and is the subject of the article discussed above. Essentially this bill allows municiplaties with under funded pensions to delay payments which will mean that future taxpayers will have to foot the bill. It will lead to increased taxes.
The savings Eachus talks about with Hazleton has to do with a provision that payments are deferred for 5 years. How is that a "savings"?
What he doesn't say is that there is an 8.25% interest penalty on that deferrment. If cities like Hazleton cannot afford their pensions now how is deferring going to help them in the future? It further points to higher taxes. But it doesn't stop there.
Of course, municipalities present only part of Pennsylvania's pension woes. In 2012, state and school property taxpayers will experience significant increases in pension contributions -- from less than 5 percent of salary to upward of 30 percent -- because of similar politically motivated manipulations for public school teachers and state workers in 2001 and 2003.
This bill is no longer a missed opportunity for pension reform, but only serves to exacerbate the crisis facing Pennsylvania cities. Not only is it a vote to raise taxes now, but the deferment of payments pushes costs onto future taxpayers, and will likely mean more tax increases in the future.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Mr. Eachus- Are You Misleading The Public About Senate Bill 961 That Would Help Hazleton?
Eachus seeks guidance on Hazleton pension fund woes by Mia Light for the Citizen's Voice published June 29,2009.
Here is what Mr. Todd Eachus had to say:
House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-Butler Township, reached out to the office of the Pennsylvania auditor general Friday for guidance in correcting Hazleton's $2.5 million debt to its pension fund.
It was reported in the Times Leader by Bill O'Boylethat Eachus has sent a letter to state Auditor General Jack Wagner that condemns Barletta’s action in removing money from the city’s pension fund and asks Wagner for help to resolve the issue.
Mr. Eachus, a simple freedom of information request would find that the Auditor General supported Senate Bill 961 on June 10, 2008 in an email to Sam Monticello, then Hazleton City Administrator. Why do you want people to believe otherwise?? What is your motive?
Click on Image
Email from Robert Teplitz, Chief Counsel/Policy Director, Deparment of the Auditor General
You can read Robert Teplitz's bio here. It seems clear to me that the legal advisor from the Auditor General saw no legal or constitutional problems with Senate Bill 961. It is hard to understand why Mr. Eachus would make claims to the contrary.
James Mcaneny, Executive Director of the Public Employee Retirement Commission gave this conclusion on page 5 in his testimony before the House Finance Committee on August 18, 2008.
We believe that Senate Bill Number 961 provides a better way to provide for Hazleton's financial need than the method currently being employed. PERC supports Senate Bill 961. Mr. Eachus, again why are you misleading the public about support on this issue?
Here is what Mr. Todd Eachus had to say:
House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-Butler Township, reached out to the office of the Pennsylvania auditor general Friday for guidance in correcting Hazleton's $2.5 million debt to its pension fund.
It was reported in the Times Leader by Bill O'Boylethat Eachus has sent a letter to state Auditor General Jack Wagner that condemns Barletta’s action in removing money from the city’s pension fund and asks Wagner for help to resolve the issue.
Mr. Eachus, a simple freedom of information request would find that the Auditor General supported Senate Bill 961 on June 10, 2008 in an email to Sam Monticello, then Hazleton City Administrator. Why do you want people to believe otherwise?? What is your motive?
You can read Robert Teplitz's bio here. It seems clear to me that the legal advisor from the Auditor General saw no legal or constitutional problems with Senate Bill 961. It is hard to understand why Mr. Eachus would make claims to the contrary.
James Mcaneny, Executive Director of the Public Employee Retirement Commission gave this conclusion on page 5 in his testimony before the House Finance Committee on August 18, 2008.
We believe that Senate Bill Number 961 provides a better way to provide for Hazleton's financial need than the method currently being employed. PERC supports Senate Bill 961. Mr. Eachus, again why are you misleading the public about support on this issue?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Deep Impact Auditor General and City Of Hazleton About To Collide
Yesterday Mark Guydish of the Times Leader wrote an Opinion piece concerning the pension situation facing Hazleton. His assessment came on the heels of an article written by Steve Mocarsky after Todd Eachus wrote a letter critical of Mayor Lou Barletta's financial moves concerning the pension funds in Hazleton.
Let's take a step back from all the rhetoric spewed in this episode of Guydish's Taxpayer Victim's Unit. A little homework usually provides the necessary education to make an informed decision.
There is a law called the Third Class City Code. If we go back to the Depression era we will find that the code was created in 1931. It is found in Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes more commonly known in the legal circles as Title 53 Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations.
In looking at 53 P.S. §895.102 one will find definitions relating to pensions. A "Pension Fund" is defined as "the entity which is the repository for the assets amassed by a pension plan as reserved for present and future periodic retirement payments and benefits of active and retired members of the pension plan". A "Pension plan or system" is defined as "the various aspects of the relationship between a municipality and its employees wtih respect to retirement coverage provided by a municipality to its employees". A "Plan document" is defined as the law, ordinance, resolution, or related documents which governs the various aspects of the retirement coverage provided by a municipality to its employees, including periodic retirement payments and benefits, administration, and funding".
Do you see a pattern in the definitions? Pension payments are not only the monthly stipend provided by the plan according to the barganning agreement but also explicitly includes "BENEFITS."
The issue at hand is whether the City of Hazleton used money provided for by law, specifically Act 205, to be collected for pension payments to also be used for benefit payments. Auditor General Jack Wagner has ruled against the City of Hazleton and the Mayor believes his ruling to be incorrect according to the language of the law written above.
From the press release on the Auditor General's website. Auditor General Jack Wagner said today that an audit of the City of Hazleton’s police and firefighter pension plans found that the city improperly spent more than $1.5 million of special municipal pension tax revenues to pay for retirees’ health-care benefits....
Act 205 of 1984, the state law authorizing collection of the tax, requires that revenue from the tax be used exclusively to fund a municipality’s pension plans. Neither Act 205 nor any other state law permits using the tax revenue to pay for post-retirement health-care benefits or to buy back unused leave.
Wagner noted that Hazleton had properly exercised its right to pay retirees’ health-care benefits from general funds before 2003.
If the definition of a Pension Fund is the entity which is the repository for the assets amassed by a pension plan as reserved for present and future periodic retirement payments and benefits of active and retired members of the pension plan" how does Wagner find solid legal ground for his determination?
In the Auditor General's determination he opines that the City erred by using Act 205 money to fund retiree's health benefits. AG Wagner believes that the money can solely be used to defray the additional costs which are directly related to the pension plans of the municipality. If we go back to the definition of the "Pension plan or system" the defining words are too broad to limit retirement coverage solely to the monthly stipend.
The trouble with AG Wagner enforcing his determination lies in the travesty to the citizens of Hazleton. At this point there is no expense to the citizens of Hazleton nor the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the solution Lou Barletta found for his vexing pension issue. AG Wagner could force Hazleton into bankruptcy because its taxing ability is limited to 30 mills at the present time. The other option is for the Mayor and City Council to implement layoffs in the fire and police department to make up for the deficit that would be created by a payback.
If a law were passed it would have zero-impact on city residents and employees. If it isn't passed everyone would face a "Deep Impact."
If the Public Employee Retirement Commission(PERC) does not have a problem with Barletta's solution why does Todd Eachus? If the Senate voted 49-0 to support a legal remedy why is it that Todd Eachus has a problem?
From Steve Mocarsky's article: Eachus said he’s busy working to try to balance the state budget, which he said is “facing the largest deficit since the Great Depression” – $3.2 billion – and trying to find a fix for the city’s problem right now is impractical. Uhhh Todd, who got us into the largest deficit since the Great Depression? You and Governor Rendell. And are really too busy to help the people in your district?
Let's take a step back from all the rhetoric spewed in this episode of Guydish's Taxpayer Victim's Unit. A little homework usually provides the necessary education to make an informed decision.
There is a law called the Third Class City Code. If we go back to the Depression era we will find that the code was created in 1931. It is found in Purdon's Pennsylvania Statutes more commonly known in the legal circles as Title 53 Municipal and Quasi-Municipal Corporations.
In looking at 53 P.S. §895.102 one will find definitions relating to pensions. A "Pension Fund" is defined as "the entity which is the repository for the assets amassed by a pension plan as reserved for present and future periodic retirement payments and benefits of active and retired members of the pension plan". A "Pension plan or system" is defined as "the various aspects of the relationship between a municipality and its employees wtih respect to retirement coverage provided by a municipality to its employees". A "Plan document" is defined as the law, ordinance, resolution, or related documents which governs the various aspects of the retirement coverage provided by a municipality to its employees, including periodic retirement payments and benefits, administration, and funding".
Do you see a pattern in the definitions? Pension payments are not only the monthly stipend provided by the plan according to the barganning agreement but also explicitly includes "BENEFITS."
The issue at hand is whether the City of Hazleton used money provided for by law, specifically Act 205, to be collected for pension payments to also be used for benefit payments. Auditor General Jack Wagner has ruled against the City of Hazleton and the Mayor believes his ruling to be incorrect according to the language of the law written above.
From the press release on the Auditor General's website. Auditor General Jack Wagner said today that an audit of the City of Hazleton’s police and firefighter pension plans found that the city improperly spent more than $1.5 million of special municipal pension tax revenues to pay for retirees’ health-care benefits....
Act 205 of 1984, the state law authorizing collection of the tax, requires that revenue from the tax be used exclusively to fund a municipality’s pension plans. Neither Act 205 nor any other state law permits using the tax revenue to pay for post-retirement health-care benefits or to buy back unused leave.
Wagner noted that Hazleton had properly exercised its right to pay retirees’ health-care benefits from general funds before 2003.
If the definition of a Pension Fund is the entity which is the repository for the assets amassed by a pension plan as reserved for present and future periodic retirement payments and benefits of active and retired members of the pension plan" how does Wagner find solid legal ground for his determination?
In the Auditor General's determination he opines that the City erred by using Act 205 money to fund retiree's health benefits. AG Wagner believes that the money can solely be used to defray the additional costs which are directly related to the pension plans of the municipality. If we go back to the definition of the "Pension plan or system" the defining words are too broad to limit retirement coverage solely to the monthly stipend.
The trouble with AG Wagner enforcing his determination lies in the travesty to the citizens of Hazleton. At this point there is no expense to the citizens of Hazleton nor the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the solution Lou Barletta found for his vexing pension issue. AG Wagner could force Hazleton into bankruptcy because its taxing ability is limited to 30 mills at the present time. The other option is for the Mayor and City Council to implement layoffs in the fire and police department to make up for the deficit that would be created by a payback.
If a law were passed it would have zero-impact on city residents and employees. If it isn't passed everyone would face a "Deep Impact."
If the Public Employee Retirement Commission(PERC) does not have a problem with Barletta's solution why does Todd Eachus? If the Senate voted 49-0 to support a legal remedy why is it that Todd Eachus has a problem?
From Steve Mocarsky's article: Eachus said he’s busy working to try to balance the state budget, which he said is “facing the largest deficit since the Great Depression” – $3.2 billion – and trying to find a fix for the city’s problem right now is impractical. Uhhh Todd, who got us into the largest deficit since the Great Depression? You and Governor Rendell. And are really too busy to help the people in your district?
Monday, March 30, 2009
State Office Building Sale- Another Democratic Fiasco
Inquiry launched into State Office Building sale
State auditor general claims taxpayers being 'ripped off'
Thursday, March 26, 2009
By Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The end of the article pretty much says it all.
Despite Mr. Wagner's complaints about a fire sale, Mr. Piatt said Millcraft is paying $100,000 more for the building than another developer, the Buncher Co., offered last year when the economy was still good. Buncher pulled out of the deal earlier this year.
Mr. Piatt and his father, Millcraft Chairman Jack Piatt, have contributed $221,000 to the campaigns of Gov. Ed Rendell since 2002. But Lucas Piatt and state officials insisted the contributions had nothing to do with the sale, saying it was the result of a competitive bidding process.
"There's never a quid pro quo, you scratch my back, we'll scratch yours," Lucas Piatt said. "To even assume we're a pay-to-play type company is asinine in my mind."
The State Office Building has an assessed value of $14.9 million but Mr. Creedon argued the market itself dictated the $4.6 million selling price through the state's competitive process.
Reminds me of the Security Savings/KNBT mess down in Hazleton with the Luzerne County Commissioners Skrep and Vonderheid.
State auditor general claims taxpayers being 'ripped off'
Thursday, March 26, 2009
By Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The end of the article pretty much says it all.
Despite Mr. Wagner's complaints about a fire sale, Mr. Piatt said Millcraft is paying $100,000 more for the building than another developer, the Buncher Co., offered last year when the economy was still good. Buncher pulled out of the deal earlier this year.
Mr. Piatt and his father, Millcraft Chairman Jack Piatt, have contributed $221,000 to the campaigns of Gov. Ed Rendell since 2002. But Lucas Piatt and state officials insisted the contributions had nothing to do with the sale, saying it was the result of a competitive bidding process.
"There's never a quid pro quo, you scratch my back, we'll scratch yours," Lucas Piatt said. "To even assume we're a pay-to-play type company is asinine in my mind."
The State Office Building has an assessed value of $14.9 million but Mr. Creedon argued the market itself dictated the $4.6 million selling price through the state's competitive process.
Reminds me of the Security Savings/KNBT mess down in Hazleton with the Luzerne County Commissioners Skrep and Vonderheid.
Friday, February 20, 2009
AG Tom Corbett-Shock The Conscience Of People
When the next criminal charges come in the Bonusgate public corruption investigation of the Legislature, they will "shock the conscience of people" because of the staggering amount of tax money involved according to Attorney General Tom Corbett.
The grand jury investigation is proceeding more smoothly than it did a few months ago, since House Republicans agreed to turn over certain records, Corbett said in an interview before he testified to the House Appropriations Committee about his office's budget.
"The investigation is ongoing, and when we are prepared to release information, we will," he said. "If you're going down a bumpy road, you've got to slow down, don't you? It's going more smoothly now."
Corbett said he has no "time schedule" for filing criminal charges.
It seems the people over at the AP did not do their homework before reporting AP: Legislature Spent $5.8M Investigating $3.7M In Bonuses When Corbett releases the figures I am sure the latter will increase by a great amount.
If you are interested here is the link for the first grand jury indictments.
But I think you will have more fun if you click on this link- Statements From Governor, Lawmakers, General Counsel
Something you will notice on the last link. There is a link to the Harrisburg Indictment and the Pittsburgh Indictment. The mainstream media has been reporting that AG Corbett empaneled a second statewide grand jury. According to my sources inside his office and according to the links he empaneled a THIRD grand jury, two in Harrisburg and the one in Pittsburgh.
In the meantime Governor Rendell has his own problems regarding secrecy in awarding contracts.
A lack of transparency leaves auditors unable to "ascertain whether proper controls are in place to prevent fraud, abuse or other inappropriate activity from occurring during the contract" awarding process, states the 2008 audit prepared by state Auditor General Jack Wagner's office and an outside auditing company.
Wagner raised a similar issue in a preliminary audit reported on by The Patriot-News last week. That draft audit involves nearly $600 million in technology contracts awarded to the international consulting firm Deloitte from 2004 through 2007, during Gov. Ed Rendell's administration.
Rep. Douglas Reichley, R-Lehigh County, who has been critical of the Rendell administration's contracting practices, said he doesn't understand why Rendell doesn't mandate full cooperation with auditors.
Rendell must take a lesson from his Democratic friends in Luzerne County.
Here's a great article at the National Institute of Corrections on Building Community Support for New Jail Construction. You could also read an article about Marketing Strategies for Inmate Programs: A Succinct Review. Seems pretty simple to me. Get the FBI and the Attorney General into your county and you have a "captive" audience. Ohhh...wait..that is "captured" audience.
The grand jury investigation is proceeding more smoothly than it did a few months ago, since House Republicans agreed to turn over certain records, Corbett said in an interview before he testified to the House Appropriations Committee about his office's budget.
"The investigation is ongoing, and when we are prepared to release information, we will," he said. "If you're going down a bumpy road, you've got to slow down, don't you? It's going more smoothly now."
Corbett said he has no "time schedule" for filing criminal charges.
It seems the people over at the AP did not do their homework before reporting AP: Legislature Spent $5.8M Investigating $3.7M In Bonuses When Corbett releases the figures I am sure the latter will increase by a great amount.
If you are interested here is the link for the first grand jury indictments.
But I think you will have more fun if you click on this link- Statements From Governor, Lawmakers, General Counsel
Something you will notice on the last link. There is a link to the Harrisburg Indictment and the Pittsburgh Indictment. The mainstream media has been reporting that AG Corbett empaneled a second statewide grand jury. According to my sources inside his office and according to the links he empaneled a THIRD grand jury, two in Harrisburg and the one in Pittsburgh.
In the meantime Governor Rendell has his own problems regarding secrecy in awarding contracts.
A lack of transparency leaves auditors unable to "ascertain whether proper controls are in place to prevent fraud, abuse or other inappropriate activity from occurring during the contract" awarding process, states the 2008 audit prepared by state Auditor General Jack Wagner's office and an outside auditing company.
Wagner raised a similar issue in a preliminary audit reported on by The Patriot-News last week. That draft audit involves nearly $600 million in technology contracts awarded to the international consulting firm Deloitte from 2004 through 2007, during Gov. Ed Rendell's administration.
Rep. Douglas Reichley, R-Lehigh County, who has been critical of the Rendell administration's contracting practices, said he doesn't understand why Rendell doesn't mandate full cooperation with auditors.
Rendell must take a lesson from his Democratic friends in Luzerne County.
Here's a great article at the National Institute of Corrections on Building Community Support for New Jail Construction. You could also read an article about Marketing Strategies for Inmate Programs: A Succinct Review. Seems pretty simple to me. Get the FBI and the Attorney General into your county and you have a "captive" audience. Ohhh...wait..that is "captured" audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)